anaanda
Well-known
I've scanned a lot of different film and Ilford xp2 super or Kodak 400 CN scans the best but I only do black and white. I don't know a lot of technical details but maybe it has to do with the C41 thing. I think scanners were designed pretty much for scanning color film and slides...
sf
Veteran
hmm. XP2 will probably offer enough resolution for a lens test, given this is for the screen, but will it outperform something like Neopan 400? That is the question.
anaanda
Well-known
I don't know if you've every shot with XP2, but its practically grainless and has an extremely wide tonal range..I was resistant at first to use it but know I actually really like it. Even though its cheap to develop it (2.75$) at costco, i still try and save money by buying tri-x or fuji and then developing myself. Tri-x is $ 3.80 a roll.. When I don't want to bother with developing or if I do a wedding I buy XP2 which is a little more expensive. ( I don't want to risk screwing up someones wedding pictures by developing them myself!!
By the way I went with Xpan and really love it, I just like the convenience of 35mm film and with the xpan you get that medium format look! I am sure the Bronica is sweet as well
Cheers
By the way I went with Xpan and really love it, I just like the convenience of 35mm film and with the xpan you get that medium format look! I am sure the Bronica is sweet as well
Cheers
biomed
Veteran
shutterflower said:
I have good results with XP-2.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
shutterflower said:
You may want to consider some of the T-grain films. Some people don't like the look, but the stuff is pretty smooth looking. I like Neopan 400, too, but I don't know if I agree with the "no visible grain" statement. I've seen it look both smooth and grainy, depending on combinations of exposure, development, etc.
.
sf
Veteran
RayPA said:
the exposure was probably around 1/30, and I don't know the developer.
sf
Veteran
anaanda said:
does Costco develop 120 as well? I'd guess not.
N
Nick R.
Guest
If your lab is good enough, I'd use XP2 and scan the prints. A good shop will print better than you can scan neg's.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Exposure is a combination of shutter and aperture.
You cannot get low grain and high sharpness. It's just not possible. Now, you can _start_ with a low grain film and use an acutance developer, but then you're getting more grain in that film than if you went with a low grain developer. You can have one or the other.
If you want to do lens resolution tests, you need sharpness. Go get some TFX-2 from Photo Formulary. Grain will go insane (seriously) but you'll get every last bit of sharpness out of that film/lens combination.
Remember, also, that grain is a result of exposure, time in and temp of developer. Get all of those locked in and you'll have it as under control as possible.
allan
You cannot get low grain and high sharpness. It's just not possible. Now, you can _start_ with a low grain film and use an acutance developer, but then you're getting more grain in that film than if you went with a low grain developer. You can have one or the other.
If you want to do lens resolution tests, you need sharpness. Go get some TFX-2 from Photo Formulary. Grain will go insane (seriously) but you'll get every last bit of sharpness out of that film/lens combination.
Remember, also, that grain is a result of exposure, time in and temp of developer. Get all of those locked in and you'll have it as under control as possible.
allan
sf
Veteran
Nick R. said:
I don't know . . . I'm scanning pretty high resolution. I'd have to scan some seriously large prints to get that kind of resolution.
and yeah, I realize that low grain/sharpness relationship. I suppose, in the end, I will probably just be using the Arista developing set - perhaphs Rodinal.
N
Nick R.
Guest
I scan at high resolution, too. But I don't think that my Konica-Minolta scan elite II can hold the film as flat as a professional photoprinter. The point being that the prints you see will be the best you can get for you to judge your lenses. The scans you make from the prints might not be as good as scans you make from your negs but those are just for posting, n'est ce pas?
Anyway, prints I get back with my XP2 negs are better than what I can get scanning but that's just me.
Anyway, prints I get back with my XP2 negs are better than what I can get scanning but that's just me.
furcafe
Veteran
He's using the Dimage Scan Multi Pro, which goes up to 4800 dpi in 35mm & 3200 in 120, which should provide enough detail to look @ the grain (& holds the film flat enough for his purposes).
Nick R. said:
Last edited:
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
Question to ask might be if you settle on something like Neopan 400 for scanning can you get the same creamy results when you print from an enlarger? I found Neopan to be way too contrasty especially when making Lith prints.